The continuing works at high kirkfield….kitchen
More to follow (GOING TO BED!!!!)
Interesting blog I found called Bogpaper.com….
The £22 million, say, it cost to evict an encampment of Irish travellers from their illegal site at Dale Farm in Essex?
Or the £600 million the Ministry of Defence forks out annually for compensation claims ranging from £81,000 to four soldiers who’ve been given badly fitting boots to the £3 million paid out to the family of an Iraqi who died after being beaten by British troops in Iraq?
Or the £18.3 billion the government is committed to spending every year “decarbonising” the economy under the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Or how about the £850 billion or more spent by the government on the 2009 bank bail-out?
I’m not after value judgements here: just answers to a basic question I don’t think any of us ask nearly often enough. Who pays for all this stuff?
If you’re anything like me you’d probably rather not know. At least that’s how I used to be till quite recently. The way I’d rationalise the smaller figures would be something like: “Well the population is about 60 million, the working population must be around 30 million and 30 million times lots of tax pounds is enough to take care of that kind of thing.”
And the way I’d rationalise the larger sums, like that £850 billion – or, worse, the £5 trillion or so which constitutes Britain’s national debt – would be to bury my head under my pillow and hope that all this horrid nightmare stuff would eventually be magicked away by someone, somewhere who knew what he was doing.
But then came the event which opened my eyes to the terrifying truth. It was a small meeting in a Committee Room in the House Of Commons, attended by no more than five MPs, a few economists and a handful of bloggers. Blink and you’d have missed it. What I heard there was so appalling – but made so much sense – that it spurred me into immediate, drastic action. First, I put our much-loved family home on the market; second, I resolved to devote my energies over the next months and years to warning as many of you as I can of the disaster which lies ahead of us.
What kind of disaster? Not even our greatest economists know the precise answer to that one but then, did they ever? All we can say with certainty is that’s going to be ugly.
Best case scenario is that we experience years of stagnation, rising unemployment and falling wages. Worst could be anything from Weimar-style hyperinflation to riots, shortages and civil war leading to the emergence of the kind of totalitarian regimes which seized Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Currently, we’re in a kind of limbo, muddling along as best we can, hoping someone will find a solution, somehow and that it will all get back to normal. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Before things start getting better they’re going to have to get a whole lot worse.
Why? Because, for four decades, we in the West have been inflating the mother of all credit bubbles. We’ve been maxing out on cheap credit, spending money we don’t have, borrowing far more than we can ever afford to repay – and now we’re about to get the shocking bill.
Sure we can keep trying to put off the evil day using all sorts of devious cheats – money printing and artificially low interest rates appear to be the current favoured options – but in the end it’s not going to save us. What our governments are doing now is the equivalent of forcing us all to drink more booze to stave off our hangover: the longer we put off facing the inevitable, the more painful it’s going to be.
So far so very obvious. It’s not as though you can’t read similarly dire predictions every day on the internet. All that was different about this meeting was that it explained, in a way that had never been really clear to me before, exactly why we’re in the mess we’re in.
The meeting was organised by the Cobden Centre and the main speaker was Detlev Schlichter, author of Paper Money Collapse. Schlichter is a follower of the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises, who foresaw not only the first Great Depression but also the new one fast approaching now.
Von Mises wrote:
There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.
One of von Mises’s great bugbears was “fiat currency” – the kind of money that governments are able to create at their whim. (As opposed to money whose supply is limited by being linked to a scarce commodity, as happened in the era of the “gold standard”). And von Mises had a point: every paper money system in history from China’s Southern Song Dynasty onwards has ended in failure. If it wasn’t brought voluntarily to an end, then the currency inevitably collapsed, invariably accompanied by social unrest and economic hardship.
Perhaps you’ll have worked out by now why we called this site Bogpaper. One of the reasons, anyway. Another is that it’s salacious and snappy. Another is that for such a cool name we got it surprisingly cheap. Another is that we can help promote it with amusing taglines like “Bogpaper: we’re here to save your arse!” and “Bogpaper: getting you out of the shit since 2012.” To which we might add, Bogpaper: not just about Austrian economics and fiat currency.
Because it’s not. Sure, you’ll like Bogpaper if you’re interested in those things.
But you’ll also like it if:
You believe – as we all do here – in free markets, free speech, liberty, personal responsibility and limited government.
You probably don’t believe in: bank bail-outs; the European Union; the Federal Reserve; crony capitalism; corporate rent-seeking; political correctness; HS2; wind farms; PFI; Man-Made Global Warming.
You’ve looked at the GOP shortlist and realised: America, at least as much as Europe, is toast.
You’ve accepted we’re all toast but you’d prefer to be lightly browned rather than charred.
You’re worried government spending has got completely out of control and that we’re entering an Atlas-Shrugged-style disaster zone where the productive few are bankrolling the feckless many.
You’ve sensed for some time that everything’s about to go tits up but you’d like it if someone could explain to you why.
You want to find out how best to protect yourself, your friends, and your family from the worst effects of the coming economic armaggedon.
You think people like us should stick together and build a community where we can exchange goods, services, ideas.
You want it all to be over soon so you can pick up the pieces and get on with your life and build a better future for the kids.
You – now you think about it – don’t merely want to survive this economic armaggedon but actually to come out of it much wealthier and more successful. (Yes it’s possible: we can point you in the right direction).
You like Alex Jones, Zero Hedge and Telegraph blogs.
You have a remote shack in the hills, next to a clean water source, surrounded by razor wire and claymores, with a year’s supply of dried food, plus plenty of ammo for your M4 and your shotgun. Or at least you do in your fantasies.
You’re a goldbug. (Duh!)
You believe that revolution is too important to be left to the left.
You’re a confused member of Occupy in need of enlightenment.
You’re middle class and well educated and frankly pissed off because you can’t earn enough to give yourself an even half-way decent standard of living any more.
You’ve got stuff to say, pithily and entertainingly, on any of these subjects and you’d like to blog on it for us.
You want to know the answer to the question I asked at the beginning.
Yeah. Where does all that money come from?
I was having a look at the EOS 7D camera!
I loved her voice
I thought….I must find out about her 🙂
I loved these pieces…
Gare loch, 1986
From the James Delingpole blog at the Telegraph…its interesting to note the amount of people commenting on his articles. It will be interesting to see where this story runs….
Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.
In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.
As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:
/// The IPCC Process ///
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.
Following on from my earlier blog piece about a news item on the BBC
Alex Jones of Infowars Nightly News contacted DEMOS and asked Jamie Bartlett to come onto the show for a debate. Quite interesting viewing. Ironically, he could well become a good example with regard to his own plea to evaluate carefully everything you see on the internet. In particular his use of straw man, ad hominem…oh and well all else fails saying – well er, I’m not qualified to comment. It is good to see a discussion where the two opposing viewpoints are able to spend some time about their relative points of view, and not let things get down into the most base personal attacks. As an old friend from music days once said to me (referring to a judge’s comments)….opinions are like arseholes…..everybody’s got one!
This is great: I saw it eating a big plate of squid in Las Palmas and scrawled down the name of the tune on my napkin 🙂